View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
I also remember some young secondary people hurt or recovering from surgery and thus, having difficulty catching up. Too, the coaching was far from first-rate. Theres talent there. How it plays out, Im hoping is positive with health and better coaching.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
What are you talking about? What have I missed about Terps?
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
Okay, so you are leaning on the coaching being more of a problem than the talent. Fine.
Of all the coaches we had, I think Bettcher got the rawest deal with a dearth of talent and inexperience. I don't think he forgot on the plane ride from Arizona when he took the job.
4% of "draft equity"?? Sounds like another fancy way to complain.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
I said draft capital...
Of course you are too stupid to figure out how to figure that out...
Try figuring it out using the draft value chart.
Also consider he has 3 firsts. I also didn't even use the fact that he traded a pick for Ogletree.
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
Down these tunnels for there is no cheese are the end, but what is the proper draft equity allocation when you have no no no talent and need to replace your QB (which may require bundling choices to move up)?
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
He's got to be able to take it on the chin. I wish he didn't leave as I do value most of what he brings to the table, but when he gets into the holier than thou mantra that he's been aggressively pushing the last few months, he's going to face some backlash.
I don't condone at all what Joey said to him, that was ridiculous. But Terps posted what he did knowing it would cause backlash. He purposely left out that "chunk plays" can and do come from being able to run well as it opens up play action (a basic concept of football 101) and that his favorite player (Lamar Jackson) throws well because he/the team run really well.
When you leave out simple stuff like that on purpose then you are just trolling. He got called out on it and didn't like it (though Joey's was extreme and uncalled for).
Down these tunnels for there is no cheese are the end, but what is the proper draft equity allocation when you have no no no talent and need to replace your QB (which may require bundling choices to move up)?
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
Bill I think you missed the point I was making.
When I said that GD had choices, that is a rebuttal to people who say that he signed Solder because "He had no choice".
He had plenty of other paths/choices he could have made. He has to own the choice of signing Solder. There was no gun to head.
The Patriots traded for Trent Brown, they alse drafted Fields.
The Giants had a ton of draft capital available in that draft due to picking 2nd. That draft capital could have been parleyed into multiple first and second round picks, in a draft that was unusually heavy in good OL talent. Which I for one advocated BEFORE the draft.
If another GM found choices at left tackle, and fan at home can identify multiple choices other than Solder, then it is fair to say that Gettleman had more choices that just signing Solder. Gettleman did not *HAVE* to sign Solder he had other choices. Full stop. That is where that analysis ends.
Free Agency takes place before the draft. Whether signing Solder was the right move or not, he invested a lot of money into him to plug into the LT position.
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
Why does my advanced stat, meaningless? Just for arguments sake, would you say that he invested the same amount of draft capital in the OL if he instead drafted Nelson with the 2018 #2 pick (not that I am advocating this), and say Dillard or Howard (again not necessarily advocating)? I mean that would be 12.5% of his picks right?
What's meaningless is everything that you put in this forum.
Also, apparently you missed the fact that I acknowledged his moves in FA and trades in my original post. I also acknowledge that he was lucky enough to have Jamon Brown fall in his lap and he let him walk when he could have been kept fairly cheaply. So since you didn't get it from what I wrote, taken as a whole, his moves outside the draft to bolster the OL, IMO, were piss poor. Also, you have it wrong about the number of starting tackles he brought in. Remmers is not under contract at this moment. Another way of looking at his moves is that in 2 years he has brought in 2 effective OL players that are currently on the roster. At that rate, we have 3 more years to wait before we have a decent OL.
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts. I don't see anything in regards to analysis or critical thinking (and that doesn't mean being critical of others just so you know). You never add anything of value from which others can learn something. Everything you do is a sick attempt to tear down others for your own self aggrandizement. You mock my post, because, I supposedly went through "gymnastics" to come up with 4%. For me it took almost no effort at all, it wasn't gymnastics.... I'm good at math. And it does more accurately represent the draft capital (I am using draft equity and draft capital synonymously here, is that really a quibble?) invested in the position.
I would be really interested to see you bring something of real value to the discussion for a change!
Free Agency takes place before the draft. Whether signing Solder was the right move or not, he invested a lot of money into him to plug into the LT position.
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Signing Solder was a bad idea from the get go... Many believed that to be so and questioned it at the time of the signing. Hindsight has proven them right.
Did DG explore trading for Trent Brown?
How about trading for other players buried on other teams depth charts?
How about going into the draft *NOT* locked in on a RB, and trading down and picking up one of the many now starting LTs from that draft? There were other options in FA as stop gaps if he felt he need to hedge this bet, Solder wasn't a hedge.
The point is, there were other options. Probably many more options of which I have no knowledge. The whole point is that people say that DG had no choice but to sign Solder. That is revisionist history. There were other options. And that is all that I am saying.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
Quote:
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
Quote:
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
Fucking ponderous.
First, I don't give a crap about the Panthers, I would not even open a thread about them. Let me know when you "break" something with regards to the Giants.
As far as providing "the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL.". Bravo, you told everybody something everybody already knew. Well done, you've caught up with the rest of us!
As far as DG's combination of methods... Again, facts we all already know, and I acknowledged in my original post. And the whole point of my post which you are too busy self fellating to realize or notice is that, I take issue with not only the players he has picked, but his philosophy regarding filling out the position in general. That was the whole point of my post. And if I disagree with his whole philosophy, it is my prerogative to hold that opinion. Don't presume to tell me what opinions that I can and cannot hold! I.E. that I can ONLY have an issue with the players, and not have an issue with his approach/philosophy. And you dare to call others smug and arrogant!
I don't agree with signing aging and average talent to record breaking contracts, I don't agree with signing marginal talent to multi-year deal that anticipates them as a starter (Omameh), I don't agree with allowing average talent to walk when you can pay them slightly below average starter money (Brown). If you don't let Brown walk, the you can trade Vernon for an OC or a ORT. Once he blundered into the situation he was in, I guess trading for Zietler was good, but he should have been in a very different situation by then. I'm fine with the 1 year Remmers signing. I don't agree with not focusing on the draft to replenish the line and acquire some backups that may develop into starters later.
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA. I'm good with an appropriate trade as well.
Given the starting point he had, spending only 4% of draft capital, (and just to make you happy) based on the draft value chart, does not meet the philosophy I would like to see. Is that clear enough sink into that cement block you have sitting on your shoulders?
The Giants had no business signing a 30 year old tackle to a 4 year deal when they should have known that they were in rebuilding mode. By the time the team is built, he won't be around anymore and you have to find another one anyway.
This move only makes sense in Gettleman's bizarro world in which he felt he could compete and rebuild at the same time. At least he admitted he was wrong about that.... Once you admit that mistake, signing Solder was a part of that mistake, and a mistake in its own right.
What is Gettleman's long term plan at the tackle spots. 2 years in and we've seen absolutely nothing in that regards. That is a catastrophically bad approach IMO.
I still put the odds that Mara/Tisch and/or any coaching they interviewed said fix the LT until you get a new QB at 30%.
Yeah yeah he said it was him. No GM blames their owner until they write a book after retiring. And good soldier GMS definitely aren't going to imply anything like that.
imo, that's what they all hoped or they started with the idea they had more talent from 2016/2017 knowing they could reverse into Plan B. Who Knows...we don't know with enough certainty to dig in on the conclusion that DG will always do the wrong thing which is what I hear when I hear this stuff.
We also need to remember that there wasn't the counter opinions on talent the new staff is likely to jawbone back.
At the time Solder was a 3-5 year "solution" that was an available average to slightly better LT (and the market for those is not cheap for any GM).
Going into condemnation mode when we don't know leaves me convinced a lot of all out scorched earth all wrong all the time Dg folks never ran a business with the velocity of decisions and the claustrophobic rule sent of constraints the NFL has.
Whats more Im tired of NFGML. I watch the team on the field. By definition all GMS are going to be 50% wrong. ( and that 50% is composed of stretches of outstanding outcomes and stretches of 25% outcomes. 50% is the average ten year team track record in the NFL. Averages are composed of 35% period s and 65% periods). Even the NE Patriots are more than 50% wrong in their unimpressive drafting record (but an impressive front line coaching machine).
To me, this "game" implies we think we would make a better GM. Its likely not true and likely never will be. Its not fun to me to be a critic. To me, close connections between thinking and actions we actually can take is a healthier life.
But that's just me. Its all ok if others get something from it. Lifes too short and this is just about how we spend our time.
And NE put in a close bid for Solder...so this doesn't fit as GM malpractice. It was a judgement call...not a travesty
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
is a good signing if he played/plays well regardless of how long the rebuild takes. Theres value in Jones not getting hit with an old, but good LT that wont be around for his prime years.
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
And NE put in a close bid for Solder...so this doesn't fit as GM malpractice. It was a judgement call...not a travesty
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
Oh, I fully agree that SB was riskier...
By now everybody should know my feelings on drafting SB.
My comments here are specifically in the context of the fact that we are discussing DG's mantra and leaving out "protecting the passer". So my comments are restricted only to the the fact that he seems to have a flawed philosophy toward building the OL. That flaw is that, he appears to have prioritized other positions in the draft over OL. And that de-prioritization seems to be in line with his mantra, leaving out the protect the passer part. Could it just be coincidence. Of course. I tend not to believe in coincidence, but even still, I am not drawing a final conclusion. Just pointing out the fact that his actions coincide with a literal interpretation of his mantra. And we all know that Gettleman is in fact very literal.
With regards to his decisions vs. ownership. First, the reality is that the GMship of the Giants is a combination of the the Maras and Gettleman. The GMship failure to date falls on that whole group. As a group, I have no confidence in their competency. Yes its not clear who wanted what. But either DG truly believed he could rebuild and compete, he convinced himself he could do it, or he was incapable of winning enough trust and confidence from ownership to get them to follow an alternative plan, his plan. Any way you cut it, its some form of incompetency. In fact the latter is perhaps the most damning for the long term because it means that the Mara's will continue to drive the ship.
A couple of factors ignored when evaluating Solder at the time. He wasn't the typical 4th or 5th year player coming off a rookie deal and primed for a big pay day. He had 7 years of wear and tear. He'd also been sick and had a pretty good injury to his bicep.
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
Just about every human I ever met is smart enough to be situational when they think a situation calls for it or its convenient to do so.
As for the Mara's, I dunno, the last three weeks actions sure were completely consistent with the prior years mantras assigned to them weren't they?
Perhaps flaws in the prior construct? Maybe time to re consider the certainty built into the model?
Good night
Now you are being too literal...
Gettleman has been more literal than not. We have been surprised by something things he has said, and people have defending him saying well he didn't mean it literally that way, its just something to say. Then later we find out, he did, in fact, mean it exactly that way. He has even joked aobut it, saying, "I told you <thus and such>, and you didn't believe me". So at this point, I think it is safer to take what he says at face value, rather than to try and find some hidden meaning. He is, generally speaking, not deceptive. That is what I meant by being literal.
I have no certainty in much regarding the Giants. About the only thing I am certain about is that what they have been doing for the past 9 years has been, to date, a failure. The failures seem to be top to bottom, ownership, front office, coaching and players. Beyond that it's all opinion. And you will notice that everything I said where I speculated about reasons, or better paths, etc., I made caveats with things like "seems", "appears", and "IMO".
Nowhere did I intentionally express certainty in anything except the basic state of failure. Maybe I missed a caveat, but if you reread what I wrote, I made liberal use of those caveats. I find it disingenuous, and frankly unlike you, to make such accusations about certainty. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
And we all know that Gettleman is in fact very literal.
The very in there leaves room for him to occasionally not be 100% literal. I think, by now, our experience with him, that we should all be able to accept that is a fair statement. He generally means what he says, and he is not deceptive. When he doesn't want important information to leak out, he simply doesn't talk or refuses to answer. But I cannot think of an instance where he said something as intentionally deceptive GM speak. I'm sure he has done it, but the instances are rare.
To me, this "game" implies we think we would make a better GM. Its likely not true and likely never will be.
I am not suggesting that I would make a better GM... I am also not paid millions of dollars to be the GM!!!
However, I am capable of taking a critical look at a GM and realizing that the GM is flawed, and what those flaws are. And perhaps the the flaws are too consequential or there are too many of them.
And, IMO, (there is that caveat again), Gettlemen is so far under water against that 50% threshold you posit, that if he were ever to reach that level in the future, he would have to make so many right decisions in a row that the Giants should become a very good football team. But if past is any indication here, that seems highly unlikely.
A couple of factors ignored when evaluating Solder at the time. He wasn't the typical 4th or 5th year player coming off a rookie deal and primed for a big pay day. He had 7 years of wear and tear. He'd also been sick and had a pretty good injury to his bicep.
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
The problem with Solder was straightforward - the Patriots had Dante Scarnecchia and we didnt. And like anything with the Pats, you have to be skeptical with any of their available players because Belichick is so good.
So unless Dante was part of the Solder acquisition, there was a big flashing sign reading Buyer Beware.
Lets face it. Gettleman is straight forward with his thinking and lacks imagination. So he saw Solder as a safe pick and banked on Solders skills conveying. He misjudged badly and now we have an OL crisis...
is a good signing if he played/plays well regardless of how long the rebuild takes. Theres value in Jones not getting hit with an old, but good LT that wont be around for his prime years.
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
We need to spend on UFA offensive lineman. No way we want to see Jones get killed week in and week out again.
Draft LT with pick 4
Get a starting OC and a top backup.
Solder slides to RT.
Instant improvement.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
We had two and a half great pockets of football over that last 40 years.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
It isnt that the Giants Way is successful. Its that the Maras had the foresight to hire two top notch football leaders in Parcells and Coughlin and that resulted in top quality football. I would count Young in that tally except we all know how he got the job.
One hope I have from the last month is the John Mara has looked in the mirror and decided that he needed to bring in that sort of leadership and saw it in Judge. Given the buzz around Rhule, I think the owners went into the search looking for this quality and were surprised to find it in one of their second tier candidates (Judge). But thats supposition.
cosmic - wish I could be as optimistic about Mara as you
One thing that came out in the pressers that scared the shit out of me is how Mara told Judge that the Giants are a family business. And there are a shit ton of Mara's out there now that will be looking for jobs that could potentially squeeze out more qualified candidates.
When his look in the mirror moment and wanting to make people feel uncomfortable applies to the FO, I'll start to believe. Until then, all these moves are not exactly rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, but nor far off
We had two and a half great pockets of football over that last 40 years.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
And to this point... The Giants were mired in 17 years of lousy football when they were forced to take on Young. Wellington and Tim were forced to take a backseat and let Young run the football operations. He was followed by Accorsi who Wellington allowed to run football operations without meddling.
After Wellington died and Accorsi retired, John and Chris have returned to the 17 years of lousy football period where we had two meddling brothers trying to interject their will into football operations.
The Giants were successful when they had 3 things lining up.
1. The ownership wasn't meddling
2. They had a good coach
3. They had a good QB
The Giants haven't met of those criteria for quite a while now.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
👍
Interestingly I really started getting into the NFL in between the off-season of 89-90. I discovered Lawrence taylor. So my first season as a Giants "fan" is the 1990 season ( I was 12). I came right at the very tail end of that era unfortunately. I don't count XXV unfortunately because I had zero perspective of the task that winning a super how was. I certainly don't begrudge any fans who don't feel that way in regards to experiencing a championship season.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
George, great post. Terps has one mantra and repeats it time after time. And if others dont take it as gospel he talks down to them in an arrogant and condescending fashion.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
Without having read the whole thread I know this much
was that he was the first one on the trade Odell train, from the very first signs of their being an issue. He took a lot of sh-t for it but was vindicated in the end.
Other than that, I'm not remembering anything all that distinct other than falling into the Gettleman sucks group from Day 1 which I don't think has played out yet one way or the other?
but I've learned that he is a freight train you don't want to get in front of.
He is right way more often than he is wrong.
Being right is irrelevant. It doesnt take much to go against the grain on a lot of topics regarding football - theres a high failure rate in this league and lobbying for the opposite isnt some difficult task.
Ive given him a ton of credit on things in the past and instead of being gracious hes turned into some caped crusader that wont stop until every Giants fan sees things his way.
So, if hes reading this I hope he does come back and post, but if the rhetoric is going to continue hes going to get people pushing back on him.
Quote:
In comment 14787934 crick n NC said:
Quote:
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
I also remember some young secondary people hurt or recovering from surgery and thus, having difficulty catching up. Too, the coaching was far from first-rate. Theres talent there. How it plays out, Im hoping is positive with health and better coaching.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
What are you talking about? What have I missed about Terps?
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
Okay, so you are leaning on the coaching being more of a problem than the talent. Fine.
Of all the coaches we had, I think Bettcher got the rawest deal with a dearth of talent and inexperience. I don't think he forgot on the plane ride from Arizona when he took the job.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
I said draft capital...
Of course you are too stupid to figure out how to figure that out...
Try figuring it out using the draft value chart.
Also consider he has 3 firsts. I also didn't even use the fact that he traded a pick for Ogletree.
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
Using your own words above, Ace:
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
He's got to be able to take it on the chin. I wish he didn't leave as I do value most of what he brings to the table, but when he gets into the holier than thou mantra that he's been aggressively pushing the last few months, he's going to face some backlash.
I don't condone at all what Joey said to him, that was ridiculous. But Terps posted what he did knowing it would cause backlash. He purposely left out that "chunk plays" can and do come from being able to run well as it opens up play action (a basic concept of football 101) and that his favorite player (Lamar Jackson) throws well because he/the team run really well.
When you leave out simple stuff like that on purpose then you are just trolling. He got called out on it and didn't like it (though Joey's was extreme and uncalled for).
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
Bill I think you missed the point I was making.
When I said that GD had choices, that is a rebuttal to people who say that he signed Solder because "He had no choice".
He had plenty of other paths/choices he could have made. He has to own the choice of signing Solder. There was no gun to head.
The Patriots traded for Trent Brown, they alse drafted Fields.
The Giants had a ton of draft capital available in that draft due to picking 2nd. That draft capital could have been parleyed into multiple first and second round picks, in a draft that was unusually heavy in good OL talent. Which I for one advocated BEFORE the draft.
If another GM found choices at left tackle, and fan at home can identify multiple choices other than Solder, then it is fair to say that Gettleman had more choices that just signing Solder. Gettleman did not *HAVE* to sign Solder he had other choices. Full stop. That is where that analysis ends.
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Using your own words above, Ace:
Quote:
Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
Why does my advanced stat, meaningless? Just for arguments sake, would you say that he invested the same amount of draft capital in the OL if he instead drafted Nelson with the 2018 #2 pick (not that I am advocating this), and say Dillard or Howard (again not necessarily advocating)? I mean that would be 12.5% of his picks right?
What's meaningless is everything that you put in this forum.
Also, apparently you missed the fact that I acknowledged his moves in FA and trades in my original post. I also acknowledge that he was lucky enough to have Jamon Brown fall in his lap and he let him walk when he could have been kept fairly cheaply. So since you didn't get it from what I wrote, taken as a whole, his moves outside the draft to bolster the OL, IMO, were piss poor. Also, you have it wrong about the number of starting tackles he brought in. Remmers is not under contract at this moment. Another way of looking at his moves is that in 2 years he has brought in 2 effective OL players that are currently on the roster. At that rate, we have 3 more years to wait before we have a decent OL.
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts. I don't see anything in regards to analysis or critical thinking (and that doesn't mean being critical of others just so you know). You never add anything of value from which others can learn something. Everything you do is a sick attempt to tear down others for your own self aggrandizement. You mock my post, because, I supposedly went through "gymnastics" to come up with 4%. For me it took almost no effort at all, it wasn't gymnastics.... I'm good at math. And it does more accurately represent the draft capital (I am using draft equity and draft capital synonymously here, is that really a quibble?) invested in the position.
I would be really interested to see you bring something of real value to the discussion for a change!
If that was the purpose then I understand better. Thanks
If that was the purpose then I understand better. Thanks
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Signing Solder was a bad idea from the get go... Many believed that to be so and questioned it at the time of the signing. Hindsight has proven them right.
Did DG explore trading for Trent Brown?
How about trading for other players buried on other teams depth charts?
How about going into the draft *NOT* locked in on a RB, and trading down and picking up one of the many now starting LTs from that draft? There were other options in FA as stop gaps if he felt he need to hedge this bet, Solder wasn't a hedge.
The point is, there were other options. Probably many more options of which I have no knowledge. The whole point is that people say that DG had no choice but to sign Solder. That is revisionist history. There were other options. And that is all that I am saying.
If that was the purpose then I understand better. Thanks
Yeah looking back on what I said, I didn't make it clear that my comment about choices was referring to Solder.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
Fucking ponderous.
Quote:
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
Quote:
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
Fucking ponderous.
First, I don't give a crap about the Panthers, I would not even open a thread about them. Let me know when you "break" something with regards to the Giants.
As far as providing "the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL.". Bravo, you told everybody something everybody already knew. Well done, you've caught up with the rest of us!
As far as DG's combination of methods... Again, facts we all already know, and I acknowledged in my original post. And the whole point of my post which you are too busy self fellating to realize or notice is that, I take issue with not only the players he has picked, but his philosophy regarding filling out the position in general. That was the whole point of my post. And if I disagree with his whole philosophy, it is my prerogative to hold that opinion. Don't presume to tell me what opinions that I can and cannot hold! I.E. that I can ONLY have an issue with the players, and not have an issue with his approach/philosophy. And you dare to call others smug and arrogant!
I don't agree with signing aging and average talent to record breaking contracts, I don't agree with signing marginal talent to multi-year deal that anticipates them as a starter (Omameh), I don't agree with allowing average talent to walk when you can pay them slightly below average starter money (Brown). If you don't let Brown walk, the you can trade Vernon for an OC or a ORT. Once he blundered into the situation he was in, I guess trading for Zietler was good, but he should have been in a very different situation by then. I'm fine with the 1 year Remmers signing. I don't agree with not focusing on the draft to replenish the line and acquire some backups that may develop into starters later.
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA. I'm good with an appropriate trade as well.
Given the starting point he had, spending only 4% of draft capital, (and just to make you happy) based on the draft value chart, does not meet the philosophy I would like to see. Is that clear enough sink into that cement block you have sitting on your shoulders?
This move only makes sense in Gettleman's bizarro world in which he felt he could compete and rebuild at the same time. At least he admitted he was wrong about that.... Once you admit that mistake, signing Solder was a part of that mistake, and a mistake in its own right.
What is Gettleman's long term plan at the tackle spots. 2 years in and we've seen absolutely nothing in that regards. That is a catastrophically bad approach IMO.
I still put the odds that Mara/Tisch and/or any coaching they interviewed said fix the LT until you get a new QB at 30%.
Yeah yeah he said it was him. No GM blames their owner until they write a book after retiring. And good soldier GMS definitely aren't going to imply anything like that.
imo, that's what they all hoped or they started with the idea they had more talent from 2016/2017 knowing they could reverse into Plan B. Who Knows...we don't know with enough certainty to dig in on the conclusion that DG will always do the wrong thing which is what I hear when I hear this stuff.
We also need to remember that there wasn't the counter opinions on talent the new staff is likely to jawbone back.
At the time Solder was a 3-5 year "solution" that was an available average to slightly better LT (and the market for those is not cheap for any GM).
Going into condemnation mode when we don't know leaves me convinced a lot of all out scorched earth all wrong all the time Dg folks never ran a business with the velocity of decisions and the claustrophobic rule sent of constraints the NFL has.
Whats more Im tired of NFGML. I watch the team on the field. By definition all GMS are going to be 50% wrong. ( and that 50% is composed of stretches of outstanding outcomes and stretches of 25% outcomes. 50% is the average ten year team track record in the NFL. Averages are composed of 35% period s and 65% periods). Even the NE Patriots are more than 50% wrong in their unimpressive drafting record (but an impressive front line coaching machine).
To me, this "game" implies we think we would make a better GM. Its likely not true and likely never will be. Its not fun to me to be a critic. To me, close connections between thinking and actions we actually can take is a healthier life.
But that's just me. Its all ok if others get something from it. Lifes too short and this is just about how we spend our time.
Take care McL
No chance you (or I) can get through the offseason on BBI with onlt 1 case of wine!
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
Quote:
just send me a case of wine to get me through the offseason!!
No chance you (or I) can get through the offseason on BBI with onlt 1 case of wine!
If I continue reading BBI as often as I have been lately - a LOT more. And not just wine...
Quote:
In comment 14787794 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
just send me a case of wine to get me through the offseason!!
No chance you (or I) can get through the offseason on BBI with onlt 1 case of wine!
If I continue reading BBI as often as I have been lately - a LOT more. And not just wine...
Now you're talkin!
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
Oh, I fully agree that SB was riskier...
By now everybody should know my feelings on drafting SB.
My comments here are specifically in the context of the fact that we are discussing DG's mantra and leaving out "protecting the passer". So my comments are restricted only to the the fact that he seems to have a flawed philosophy toward building the OL. That flaw is that, he appears to have prioritized other positions in the draft over OL. And that de-prioritization seems to be in line with his mantra, leaving out the protect the passer part. Could it just be coincidence. Of course. I tend not to believe in coincidence, but even still, I am not drawing a final conclusion. Just pointing out the fact that his actions coincide with a literal interpretation of his mantra. And we all know that Gettleman is in fact very literal.
With regards to his decisions vs. ownership. First, the reality is that the GMship of the Giants is a combination of the the Maras and Gettleman. The GMship failure to date falls on that whole group. As a group, I have no confidence in their competency. Yes its not clear who wanted what. But either DG truly believed he could rebuild and compete, he convinced himself he could do it, or he was incapable of winning enough trust and confidence from ownership to get them to follow an alternative plan, his plan. Any way you cut it, its some form of incompetency. In fact the latter is perhaps the most damning for the long term because it means that the Mara's will continue to drive the ship.
So really not qualified to comment further.
Just about every human I ever met is smart enough to be situational when they think a situation calls for it or its convenient to do so.
As for the Mara's, I dunno, the last three weeks actions sure were completely consistent with the prior years mantras assigned to them weren't they?
Perhaps flaws in the prior construct? Maybe time to re consider the certainty built into the model?
Good night
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
Just about every human I ever met is smart enough to be situational when they think a situation calls for it or its convenient to do so.
As for the Mara's, I dunno, the last three weeks actions sure were completely consistent with the prior years mantras assigned to them weren't they?
Perhaps flaws in the prior construct? Maybe time to re consider the certainty built into the model?
Good night
Now you are being too literal...
Gettleman has been more literal than not. We have been surprised by something things he has said, and people have defending him saying well he didn't mean it literally that way, its just something to say. Then later we find out, he did, in fact, mean it exactly that way. He has even joked aobut it, saying, "I told you <thus and such>, and you didn't believe me". So at this point, I think it is safer to take what he says at face value, rather than to try and find some hidden meaning. He is, generally speaking, not deceptive. That is what I meant by being literal.
I have no certainty in much regarding the Giants. About the only thing I am certain about is that what they have been doing for the past 9 years has been, to date, a failure. The failures seem to be top to bottom, ownership, front office, coaching and players. Beyond that it's all opinion. And you will notice that everything I said where I speculated about reasons, or better paths, etc., I made caveats with things like "seems", "appears", and "IMO".
Nowhere did I intentionally express certainty in anything except the basic state of failure. Maybe I missed a caveat, but if you reread what I wrote, I made liberal use of those caveats. I find it disingenuous, and frankly unlike you, to make such accusations about certainty. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
The very in there leaves room for him to occasionally not be 100% literal. I think, by now, our experience with him, that we should all be able to accept that is a fair statement. He generally means what he says, and he is not deceptive. When he doesn't want important information to leak out, he simply doesn't talk or refuses to answer. But I cannot think of an instance where he said something as intentionally deceptive GM speak. I'm sure he has done it, but the instances are rare.
I am not suggesting that I would make a better GM... I am also not paid millions of dollars to be the GM!!!
However, I am capable of taking a critical look at a GM and realizing that the GM is flawed, and what those flaws are. And perhaps the the flaws are too consequential or there are too many of them.
And, IMO, (there is that caveat again), Gettlemen is so far under water against that 50% threshold you posit, that if he were ever to reach that level in the future, he would have to make so many right decisions in a row that the Giants should become a very good football team. But if past is any indication here, that seems highly unlikely.
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
The problem with Solder was straightforward - the Patriots had Dante Scarnecchia and we didnt. And like anything with the Pats, you have to be skeptical with any of their available players because Belichick is so good.
So unless Dante was part of the Solder acquisition, there was a big flashing sign reading Buyer Beware.
Lets face it. Gettleman is straight forward with his thinking and lacks imagination. So he saw Solder as a safe pick and banked on Solders skills conveying. He misjudged badly and now we have an OL crisis...
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
Draft LT with pick 4
Get a starting OC and a top backup.
Solder slides to RT.
Instant improvement.
The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
One hope I have from the last month is the John Mara has looked in the mirror and decided that he needed to bring in that sort of leadership and saw it in Judge. Given the buzz around Rhule, I think the owners went into the search looking for this quality and were surprised to find it in one of their second tier candidates (Judge). But thats supposition.
When his look in the mirror moment and wanting to make people feel uncomfortable applies to the FO, I'll start to believe. Until then, all these moves are not exactly rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, but nor far off
Quote:
We had two and a half great pockets of football over that last 40 years.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
Quote:
The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
And to this point... The Giants were mired in 17 years of lousy football when they were forced to take on Young. Wellington and Tim were forced to take a backseat and let Young run the football operations. He was followed by Accorsi who Wellington allowed to run football operations without meddling.
After Wellington died and Accorsi retired, John and Chris have returned to the 17 years of lousy football period where we had two meddling brothers trying to interject their will into football operations.
The Giants were successful when they had 3 things lining up.
1. The ownership wasn't meddling
2. They had a good coach
3. They had a good QB
The Giants haven't met of those criteria for quite a while now.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
Quote:
In comment 14789166 bw in dc said:
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
👍
Interestingly I really started getting into the NFL in between the off-season of 89-90. I discovered Lawrence taylor. So my first season as a Giants "fan" is the 1990 season ( I was 12). I came right at the very tail end of that era unfortunately. I don't count XXV unfortunately because I had zero perspective of the task that winning a super how was. I certainly don't begrudge any fans who don't feel that way in regards to experiencing a championship season.
Quote:
If Terps is gone then BBI is the lesser for it.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
George, great post. Terps has one mantra and repeats it time after time. And if others dont take it as gospel he talks down to them in an arrogant and condescending fashion.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
The NFL is now a passing league, yes, but just watch say SF run at will and just take your heart & soul.
Having said that, I still think KC beats them in the SB.
He is right way more often than he is wrong.
Some at the time turn out right
Some later on turn out wrong.
Like all people and all opinions
Other than that, I'm not remembering anything all that distinct other than falling into the Gettleman sucks group from Day 1 which I don't think has played out yet one way or the other?
He is right way more often than he is wrong.
Being right is irrelevant. It doesnt take much to go against the grain on a lot of topics regarding football - theres a high failure rate in this league and lobbying for the opposite isnt some difficult task.
Ive given him a ton of credit on things in the past and instead of being gracious hes turned into some caped crusader that wont stop until every Giants fan sees things his way.
So, if hes reading this I hope he does come back and post, but if the rhetoric is going to continue hes going to get people pushing back on him.